Creativity Research Journal

ISSN: 1040-0419 (Print) 1532-6934 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Linkographic Evidence for Concurrent Divergent

and Convergent Thinking in Creative Design

Gabriela Goldschmidt

To cite this article: Gabriela Goldschmidt (2016) Linkographic Evidence for Concurrent
Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Creative Design, Creativity Research Journal, 28:2,
115-122, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1162497

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162497

Published online: 09 May 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcrj20

Download by: [University of Lethbridge] Date: 13 May 2016, At: 22:33

 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 28(2), 115–122, 2016
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print/1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1162497

Linkographic Evidence for Concurrent Divergent and

Convergent Thinking in Creative Design
Gabriela Goldschmidt
Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Haifa, Israel

For a long time, the creativity literature has stressed the role of divergent thinking in creative
endeavor. More recently, it has been recognized that convergent thinking also has a role in
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:33 13 May 2016

creativity, and the design literature, which sees design as a creative activity a priori, has
largely adopted this view: Divergent and convergent thinking are seen as occurring in cyclic
phases within the design process. Neurological evidence suggests that frequent shifts between
defocused and focused attention to stimuli in memory activation, which equate divergent and
convergent thinking, are a hallmark of creative thinking. In this article, we use linkography to
show that the shifts between divergent thinking—forelinking of design moves, and convergent
thinking—backlinking of moves, are so frequent that at the cognitive scale they can be seen as
occurring concurrently in the ideation phase of creative designing. It is proposed that in
assessments of creative potential, shifts between divergent and convergent thinking should be
the yardstick instead of, or alongside measurements of divergent thinking.

Many researchers subscribe to the view that people use two
modes of reasoning, indeed two ways of thinking that serve
them in everyday life, as well as in specialized problem
solving. Different terms have been used to describe the
two modes. In an overview paper, Evans (2008) pointed
out that there are various theories of dual processing types,
systems, or modes of reasoning, not all of which are com-
patible with one another, as their attributes cannot necessa-
rily be mapped onto two generic categories of processing.
Kahneman (2011), along with other researchers, sees them
as fast and slow systems, respectively. The former is mostly
intuitive, automatic, based on memory and emotion; the
latter is reflective and rational, calculating consequences.
Sloman (1996) talked about an associative, similarity-
based system versus a symbolic, rule-based system. The
associative system makes use of visuals when relevant (as
in design); the rule-based system specifies rationale. Evans
(e.g., 2008; Evans & Stanovich, 2013) described in detail
the various theories and the attributes of the two systems,
types or modes of processing, and responded to criticism
launched against them, stressing that he does not assume the
existence of two distinct systems, but rather of various
combinations of attributes1.
In the context of neurology, Gabora (2010) talked about
associative thought and analytic thought wherein the former
tends to be intuitive, divergent, and “conducive to unearthing
remote or subtle associations between items that share fea-
tures or are correlated but not necessarily causally related.
This may lead to a promising idea or solution, although
perhaps in a vague, unpolished form” (Gabora, 2010, p. 2).
In contrast, analytic thought is rule-based and convergent,
and is “conducive to analyzing relationships of cause and
effect between items already believed to be related” (Gabora,
2010, p. 3). Basadur (1995) used the terms ideation and
evaluation to describe the scope of the spectrum Gabora
referred to, and related them to divergent and convergent
thinking. Goel (2014) talked about lateral and vertical trans-
formations in thinking that he explicitly identified with diver-
gent and convergent thinking. Indeed, most researchers who
described two reasoning and thinking modes used the terms

Correspondence should be sent to Gabriela Goldschmidt, Faculty of
Architecture and Town Planning Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Haifa, Israel 32000. E-mail: gabig@technion.ac.il
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found
online at www.tandfonline.com/HCRJ.
1
Despite Evans and Stanovich’s (Evans & Stanovich, 2013) analysis of
the various terms and their preference for types of processing, I find modes
of thinking more appropriate in the current discussion. However, I strongly
disagree with these researchers’ claim that modes are cognitive styles that
are manifest within Type 2 thinking.
 116 G. GOLDSCHMIDT
TABLE 1
Attributes of two modes of thinking
Mode 2 (Roughly
Mode 1 (roughly Divergent) Convergent)
Basadur Ideation Evaluation
(1995)
Sloman Associative, similarity-based Symbolic, rule-based
(1996)
Gabora Associative: intuitive Analytic: rule-based
(2010)
Kahneman Fast: Intuitive, based on memory Slow: Rational,
(2011) and emotion calculating
consequences
Goel (2014) Lateral transformations Vertical transformations
divergent and convergent thought; other appellations of dual
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:33 13 May 2016
thinking modes, such as systems and most commonly types,
may be regarded as roughly corresponding to divergent and
convergent thinking. Table 1 summarizes the examples cited
previously. As mentioned, a more elaborate table can be
found in e.g., Evans (2008).
DIVERGENT AND CONVERGENT THINKING
One of the many definitions of divergent thinking is “thinking
that moves away in diverging directions so as to involve a
variety of aspects and which sometimes lead[s] to novel ideas
and solutions; associated with creativity” (The Free
Dictionary, “Divergent thinking”). Convergent thinking is
demarcated as “thinking that brings together information
focused on solving a problem (especially solving problems
that have a single correct solution)” (The Free Dictionary,
“Convergent thinking”). A predominant neurological account
of the two modes of thought hinges on memory activation
patterns in the brain when attention is directed to stimuli.
Gabora (2010) explained that divergent (associative) thought
is based on defocused attention and convergent (analytic)
thought is related to focused attention. Defocused attention
corresponds to a high level of neuron activation and leads to
a flat pattern, that is, activation is distributed across overlap-
ping locations in the relevant region of neurons. Conversely, in
focused attention, memory locations are activated that are
farther from one another, resulting in a spiky pattern. Shifts
between focused and defocused attention are controllable,
unlike many other aspects of memory activation. Goel
(2014) advanced another, but compatible, explanation, based
on different transformations that occur in the right and left
prefrontal cortex. Lateral transformations support divergent
thinking, whereas vertical transformations sustain convergent
thinking. In support of this assertion, Goel cited an fMRI study
by Ellamil, Dobson, Beeman, and Christoff (2012), which
compared generative (divergent) and evaluative (convergent)
phases of creative design. The results confirm Goel’s claim.
The interest in divergent and convergent thinking originates
mainly from the study of creativity, wherein for a long time
divergent thinking got, and still gets, the lion’s share of atten-
tion, as it has been seen as the hallmark of creative thinking
(e.g., Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992; Mednick, 1962). Many
psychometric creativity tests also center on divergent thinking
(e.g., Torrance, 1974, 1988); as put by Plucker and Renzulli
(1999): “Divergent thinking tests historically occupy nearly
the entire creative process spotlight” (p. 41). Now there is a
new generation of divergent thinking tests (e.g., Auzmendi,
Villa, & Abedi, 1996; Urban & Jellen, 1996) that unpack
divergent thinking into its constituent attributes such as flu-
ency, originality, flexibility, and elaboration (Runco & Acar,
2012). Today, however, there is a wide acceptance that crea-
tivity demands not only divergent thinking, but also conver-
gent thinking, which is not extensively studied. In this article,
we treat both divergent and convergent thinking holistically,
with no regard to their attributes, whose study belongs in a
different framework.
CREATIVITY INVOLVES DIVERGENT AND
CONVERGENT THINKING
Researchers who acknowledge the need for both divergent and
convergent thinking often propose that they encompass dis-
crete phases of creative processes (e.g., Ichino, 2011). Runco
(1991) observed: “The evaluative [convergent] component of
the creative process has received very little attention, … This is
surprising because it is a vital constituent of the creative
process, and is required whenever an individual selects or
expresses a preference for an idea or set of ideas” (p. 312;
see also Runco, 2007; Runco & Acar, 2012). Goel (2014) is of
the same opinion. Vidal (2010) quoted Leonard and Swap
(1999), who described the creative process (in groups) as
comprising five steps, of which the third is divergence: gen-
erating options, and the fifth is convergence: selecting options
(step four in between is incubation). However, Vidal acknowl-
edged that the process involves “cycling repeatedly through a
process of divergent and convergent thinking” (p. 412). In
design, the dual mode has been a prominent view, embedded
in various models of the design process (e.g., Cross, 1994;
Fricke, 1996; Pugh, 1991; Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995).
The notion of repeated cycling between the two modes of
thinking has been gaining increasing support in the work of
leading researchers. Perkins (1981) proposed intuitive and ana-
lytical processes in creative thought, which are equivalent to
divergent and convergent thought, and added that “the two
strategies could occur mixed in behavior” (p. 105), despite the
fact that they are usually discussed separately. He went on to
state that “inventive people are mode shifters [between diver-
gent and convergent thinking]” (Perkins, 1992, p. 249). Gruber,
a renowned creativity scholar who studied the lives of promi-
nent creative individuals, rejected the emphasis on single
inspirational moments and looked, instead, at “many moments

of insight that occur in the course of a creative effort” (Gruber &
Davies, 1988, p. 244). Elsewhere, Gruber (1980) said,
“Interesting creative processes almost never result from single
steps, but rather from concatenations and articulation of a com-
plex set of interrelated moves.” (p. 177). As mentioned earlier,
Gabora (2010) turned to neuroscience to shed light on creative
thinking, and concluded that mode-shifting is essential to crea-
tivity. Runco and Basadur (1993) stressed the need for both
ideational skills (divergent thinking) and evaluative accuracy
(convergent thinking), in addition to appropriate attitudes, in
creative performance. They also believed that skills and accu-
racy can be improved by training. Basadur, Wakabayashi, and
Graen (1990) endorsed the view that creativity is multifaceted
and added, “Creative problem solving is a complete process
involving several particular phases synchronizing divergent and
convergent thinking in each phase” (p. 166). Linhares, Freitas,
Mendes, and Silva (2012), who studied chess playing, found
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:33 13 May 2016
evidence that pattern recognition and rational forward search,
which are not far from convergent and divergent thinking,
respectively, are deeply entangled, which may suggest a similar
entanglement of systems in other instances of problem-solving
thinking, such as designing.
In the design literature, Tversky and Chou (2010) took it for
granted that thinking both divergently and convergently is
needed to succeed in designing. Liu, Blight, and Chakrabarti
(2003) advanced the notion of multiple divergence-conver-
gence throughout the design process, and Dong (2007) talked
about cycles of convergence and divergence on the way to a
coherent design concept. Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, and Leifer
(2005) argued that design thinking entails inquiry that
“includes both a convergent component … and a divergent
component” (p. 105). This inquiry is “an iterative loop of
divergent-convergent thinking” (p. 104). The expanse of
cycles of divergent and convergent thinking differs in the
various studies, but no specific extents are indicated. None of
the researchers went as far as suggesting instantaneous shifts
between the two modes of thinking. In what follows, we
propose that the two modes of thinking occur virtually con-
currently in the design process, and we use linkography to
explicate this proposal.
LINKING DESIGN MOVES FORWARD AND
BACKWARD CORRESPONDS TO DIVERGENT AND
CONVERGENT THINKING
To study the process of design thinking, one must capture it
with high fidelity. The closest researchers can approach it is by
documenting verbalizations of designers during the process of
designing. This is precisely the procedure in protocol analysis:
A group conversation or an individual thinking out loud is
recorded; the recording is transcribed and then parsed into
segments that become the units of analysis. If one is interested
in the cognitive scale, these units are rather small—I call them
design moves. In the case of an individual, the average length
DIVERGENT AND CONVERGENT THINKING IN DESIGN 117
of a design move is around 7 sec (Goldschmidt, 2014). In
regular protocol analysis studies, moves (or other segments)
are encoded according to a scheme of categories and the results
are submitted to analysis. I choose to treat protocols differ-
ently: I look at links that moves form among each other. This
approach is in line with Gruber’s claim that creative processes
hinge on a complex set of interrelated moves (1980). The
question: “Is there a link?” is asked for every pair of moves;
for n moves it is asked n × (n – 1) / 2 times. The basis for
judging whether a link exists is the contents of the two moves,
and the judgment is made using common sense and sufficient
expertise regarding the discipline and the design task. Links
are notated in a graph called a linkograph (e.g., Goldschmidt,
1995, 2014); see Figure 1.
When establishing links, researchers match each move
with every preceding move to determine whether a link
between them exists. A link that is thus established is called
a backlink, as it points back in time—one links backward
from a given move to a move made earlier in time. After the
fact, one may talk about a virtual forelink between the
earlier move and the current move, which is made later in
time. For example, if a researcher finds a link between move
m and an earlier move j, it will be m’s backlink to j. The
same link is move j’s forelink to move m. Forelinks are
virtual because at the time that the earlier move (e.g., move
j) is generated, no subsequent moves are in existence yet,
and therefore one cannot know in real time whether or not
move j will be linked to a later move (e.g., move m).
However, with hindsight, one can talk about forelinks.
Researchers treat real (assessed) backlinks and virtual
(derived) forelinks as equals. Forelinks are of great signifi-
cance, as I show presently. Here is an example.
Figure 1 shows a linkograph in which only the links gen-
erated by move 5 (backlinks and forelinks) are notated. It
pertains to a vignette from a team design process of a bicycle
rack for a specific backpack, generated for the Delft Protocol
Workshop (Cross, Christiaans, & Dorst, 1996). The transcript
of the linked moves reads as follows:
Move 5 ‘Cos it would be nice I think I mean just from a
positioning standpoint if we’ve got this frame outline and
we know that they’re gonna stick with that you can vacuum
form a tray or a
In move 5 the rack’s description as a tray is confirmed,
after the team had considered other solutions (bag, net with
a drawstring, etc.). The tray concept, or metaphor, first
proposed in move 3, guided the further development of
the design. Move 5 links back to moves 3 and 4 (which
have forelinks to move 5):
Move 3 So it’s either a bag or maybe it’s like a little
vacuum-formed tray kinda for it to sit in
Move 4 Yeah a tray that’s right
 118 G. GOLDSCHMIDT
Backlinks
Forelinks
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:33 13 May 2016
FIGURE 1 Backlinks and forelinks of move 5 notated in a linkograph.
Move 5 forelinks to moves 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 23, 27 and 37
(which, in turn, link back to move 5):
Move 6 Right, or even just a small part of the tray, or I guess
they have these
Move 8 Maybe the tray could have a plastic snap features in
it so you just like kkkk snap your backpack down in it
Move 10 It’s a multifunction part huh
Move 13 It takes care of the easy it takes care of the rooster
tail problem of your pack
Move 15 Maybe it could be part maybe it could be a tray
with a with net and drawstring on the top of it
Move 23 So what we’re doing right now, though, is we’re
coming up with, like again, classifications of solutions of
kind of all; they’re all either/or things; I mean we wouldn’t
do the net and the shade and the snap in with the tray; either
or any one of those probably
Move 27 I think tray is sorta a new one on the list it’s not a
subset of bag; it’s kind of er yeah but oh yeah yeah yeah oh
I see shade straps is how do you dress the straps on the back
Move 37 You have a the tray would zip clip
One can see that in this vignette, move 5 has two back-
links and eight forelinks. One can establish a threshold
number of links (e.g., six links, but never fewer than three
links), and moves that reach at least this number of links
either forward or backward are called critical moves (CMs).
We distinguish between CMs due to a large number of
backlinks (<CMs) and Cms owing to a large number of
forelinks (CMs>). In rare cases, a move is found that boasts
a large number of links in both directions (<CM>). Critical
moves are of special interest because they are prime con-
tributors to a high level of interconnectivity of moves,
which is how a design synthesis is achieved. The threshold
for the establishment of criticality is flexible and depends on
the nature of the study. In the linkograph in Figure 1 note
that above move 5, a forward mark (>) is indicated at the
level of CM4, CM5 and CM6, that is, at thresholds of four,
five, and six forelinks. Because the move has eight fore-
links, the same mark would appear if the CM lines were
calibrated to include that threshold level.
I claim that forelinks are manifestations of divergent
thinking and backlinks are indications of convergent think-
ing (Goldschmidt, 2014). This is exemplified in the vignette
from the bicycle rack design, which shows that backlinks
stand for appraisal, evaluation, and confirmation. In con-
trast, forelinks stand for steps forward, the consideration of
more options and possible solutions, further development.
The observed duality shows that in creative design both
divergent and convergent thinking are needed. I subscribe
to the claim that they occur all but concurrently. To illustrate
this claim, this study concentrates on CMs because they are
the most significant moves in a design process: If one
believes that links among moves create the network that
leads to a design synthesis, then it follows that moves with
a large number of links, that is, CMs, are of special impor-
tance. To test the notion that convergent and divergent
thought in creative design are contemporaneous, we
advance the following two propositions:
Proposition 1: A process of designing that is considered
creative displays a balance between CMs due to a high
number of forelinks and CMs due to a high number of
backlinks.
 DIVERGENT AND CONVERGENT THINKING IN DESIGN 119

Proposition 2: CMs have a majority of links in the direction
that corresponds to their designated criticality (forward or
backward), but they also have links in the opposite
direction.
The next section presents evidence from empirical stu-
dies to support these propositions.
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Data from several empirical studies are used to report findings
that pertain to the ratio of <CMs to CMs>, and the percentage
of backlinks and forelinks within the two kinds of critical
moves. The data are derived from Goldschmidt (2014).
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:33 13 May 2016
percentages in Table 2, but with the exception of one case,
MIT Gideon, the proportions tend to be quite balanced, with
more CMs> than <CMs in most cases (MIT Glenda is an
exception). Gideon, a graduate student who participated in
the MIT study, generated far more CMs> than <CMs. Not
surprisingly, he was one of two weak and uncreative
designers (see Goldschmidt, 2014). The exceptions Gideon
and Glenda were also the ones with the lowest number of
CMs, which may have affected their results. If one looks at
the cumulative result across various studies, one finds that the
ratio of CMs> to <CMs comes close to 60:40, which is also
the ratio found for Martin, a prominent European architect,
and which resembles the ratio in most other studies. This
suggests that in creative design, one finds more divergence
than convergence but the proportions, which appear to remain
rather stable, also boast a fair amount of convergence.
We can further inspect CMs>:<CMs ratios by looking at the

performance of the members of the Delft team (lines 1 and 2 in

Ratio of <CMs to CMs>
The two main studies used are the aforementioned Delft bicycle
rack design and a study conducted at MIT, in which individual
participants looked at the impact of different optional entry
locations on the design of a small library. The participants
were architects and architecture students of various standing,
including some highly regarded experts.2 The Delft designers,
an individual mechanical engineer and a team of three industrial
designers, were all experts (Cross, 2011). I use cumulative mean
values, as well as particular cases, to exemplify my stance.
Table 2 lists proportions of <CMs and CMs> at a number of
thresholds in various studies. Note that the proportions vary
somewhat across thresholds. It is important to note that the
total number of critical moves in a sequence can make a differ-
ence; if this number is very low, the results may be skewed.
Due to the different thresholds and different lengths of
sequences (lengths of protocols), I cannot average the
Table 2), Kerry, Ivan and John. Table 3 gives this information,
for two criticality thresholds: six and seven links.
For team members Ivan and John, the ratios revealed in
Table 3 resemble and corroborate those in Table 2 (Delft
team). At the level of CM6, their ratios are close to 60:40.
At the high level of CM7 the proportions are less clear-cut,
but CM7s> still prevail over <CM7. Kerry is an exception:
She makes more <CMs than CMs>, at a similar, but
reversed ratio (in this, she resembles Glenda in Table 2).
Her performance in this vignette is explained elsewhere, as
part of an account of the team’s work (Cross & Clayburn
Cross, 1995). Here the data are used to further strengthen
the finding that, in most cases, divergent and convergent
thinking, as manifest in CMs> and <CMs, tend to be rather
balanced, with an advantage to divergent thinking. This
advantage is typical of the idea generation phase of design,
and more generally of “work classified as more problem
finding in nature” (Basadur, 1995, p. 63). Overall, these
findings confirm proposition 1.

TABLE 2
Ratio of CMs> to <CMs Distribution of Links Generated by CMs

Study Threshold CMs %CM> % <CM Thus far, I have looked at CMs only in terms of the direc-
tion that won them criticality. However, in addition to links
Delft team CM6 71 54 46 in the dominant direction, most critical moves (and moves
Delft team CM7 37 57 43 in general) also have links in the opposite, nondominant
Delft individual CM7 14 57 43
MIT Glenda CM4 9 44 56
direction. For example, move 5 in Figure 1 is critical owing
MIT Martin CM4 10 60 40
MIT Gideon CM4 8 87 13
TABLE 3
Across various studies* — 225 59 41
Contribution of CMs> and <CMs by Team Members
* ‘Various studies’ also include results from additional studies, not
Team member CM6s %CM> %<CM CM7s %CM> %<CM
articulated here.
Kerry 23 43 57 11 45 55
Ivan 33 58 42 12 67 33
2
The study was headed by Donald Schön and William Porter in the John 30 57 43 20 55 45
Architecture Department at MIT, with the support of National Science
Foundation grant #8611357-DMC. * Protocol units 32–37.
 120 G. GOLDSCHMIDT

TABLE 4 convergent thinking are necessary. From a neurological

Distribution of links in CMs point of view, such shifts can occur if the mind is flexible
% % % % enough to oscillate between focused and defocused atten-
Study Threshold CMs> links> <links <CMs <links links> tion to stimuli (Gabora, 2010). Focused attention is paid
to what is already there, which in linkographic terms
MIT CM4 24 76 24 12 76 24
translates to links backward. Defocused attention allows
Delft Indiv. CM7 11 78 22 8 80 20
(sample) attention to wander, to imagine what is not yet there, what
Delft team CM7 33 77 23 28 80 20 may be possible. In linkography, this translates to links
(sample) forward. Linkography makes it possible to measure these
Additional CM6 28 81 19 16 79 21 modes of thought by counting critical moves and their
study 1*
links in both directions. I have illustrated that in the
Additional CM6 34 83 17 26 82 18
study 2* conceptual stage of design problem solving, there is
Additional CM7 3 74 26 2 83 17 more divergent thinking than convergent thinking, with a
study 3* ratio of up to 60:40, but both modes are present through-
Total — 133 79 21 92 80 20 out the process. The preference for divergent thought is
*Additional studies were carried out by graduate students as part of not surprising, given the fact that I focussed on the early
their theses at Technion and at TUDelft. idea-generation phase of designing, which is considered to
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:33 13 May 2016

be the most creative part of the design process. This phase

to eight forelinks, but it also has two backlinks. I now look
at the proportion of links that critical moves generate in both
directions. Table 4 presents data from several studies, using
various criticality thresholds.
What these results tell is very interesting. When a move is
generated that has many forelinks, it is designated as a CM>.
However, it also generates backlinks: Around 80% of the
move’s links are forelinks and the remaining 20% are back-
links. Move 5 in Figure 1 is an example of this ratio, with
eight forelinks and two backlinks. Likewise, a move that is
defined as a <CM has a majority of backlinks, but also some
forelinks, and here too the ratio is 80:20. This means that
although a designer or a design team ideates, that is, comes
forth with a new idea that would be further developed in
subsequent moves (which backlink to it), the designer
reserves some attention to evaluative activity and affirm (or
question) what has already been done. Similarly, when the
designer is busy analyzing and assessing something that has
already been suggested, some of the attention is set aside to
envision future development and new options. If one accepts
the notion that forelinks, which are virtual, are as valid as
directly assessable backlinks, then these results are evidence
of the concurrence of divergent and convergent consideration
in design thinking. The designer plans ahead while also
making sure that continuity with past development is main-
tained; he or she ascertains that prior work is valid while
preparing for more development. The integrity of the design
effort is thus upheld while the effort to arrive at the best and
most novel possible solution continues. The results presented
in this section confirm proposition 2.
DISCUSSION
Current literature says that in creative work, and design in
particular, frequent shifts between divergent and
is commonly seen as one in which problems are structured
and defined, in parallel to the generation of solution ideas
(Dorst & Cross, 2001). Accordingly, more ideation, that
is, divergent thinking, is expected (Basadur, 1995).
Furthermore, I have shown that in a thinking unit like a
move, lasting about 7 sec, the two modes of thinking
coexist. Most of the attention—80%—is invested in one
mode of thinking, divergent or convergent, but part of it—
the remaining 20%—is concurrently reserved for the
other, complimentary mode, to ensure that the design
holds together and progress is safeguarded.
The interest in divergent thinking as a major indicator, or
predictor, of creative potential has led to research of its
attributes and their measurement, which continues today.
Convergent thinking has elicited much less interest as it
was, and sometimes still is, seen as mundane and of little
consequence for creativity. Historically, the study of diver-
gent thinking started before neuroscience and neurocogni-
tive science have illuminated the two modes of thinking
from a different perspective, and at a different scale, invol-
ving much smaller thinking units. Linkography is a simple
method that allows one to map the structure of design
thinking in terms of networks of moves and links among
them. Given the short duration of moves, the scale research-
ers work at is somewhere between whole phases of creative
work and the neurocognitive scale of milliseconds. Because
I equate the linking among design moves to manifestations
of divergent and convergent thinking, I can measure them
without recourse to their attributes. If one coded moves, or
links (or both), with category schemes that pertain to attri-
butes of thinking, one could also elaborate on those attri-
butes. However, I believe that the manifestations of
attributes are largely contingent on extraneous factors such
as individual differences and especially the nature of the
task, and therefore this study excludes allusion to attributes.
In a time unit of a few seconds like a design move, the
concurrence of divergence and convergence suggests that

neurocognitive tools are required to articulate further the
remarkable mode shifting mechanism that is activated when
creative designing takes place. As a result, it is proposed that
instead of focusing on the measurement of divergent thinking
to assess creativity, or alongside such measurements,
researchers should start measuring shifts between divergent
and convergent thinking, at least as far as design thinking is
concerned but probably in other creative activities, as well. At
the cognitive scale at which the work in this study is pre-
sented, I have shown elsewhere that in design, shifts between
modes of thinking specified in terms of embodiment (physi-
cal attributes) and rationale (reasons for choice of attributes)
are very frequent (Goldschmidt, 2013). It is time now to
show that shifts between divergent and convergent thinking
at the neurocognitive scale are so frequent that at the slightly
slower cognitive scale, these two modes of thinking may be
considered concurrent. It is hoped that collaborative work
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:33 13 May 2016
between researchers in design and neurocognitive science,
like that pioneered by researchers like Goel (2014) and
Ellamil et al. (2012), will continue to elucidate this intriguing
human capacity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
An initial draft of this research presented at the International
Conference on Human Behavior in Design, October 14-17,
2014, Ascona, Switzerland, and was published in the compen-
dium of conference papers (no page numbers).
REFERENCES
Auzmendi, E., Villa, A., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a
newly constructed multiple-choice creativity instrument. Creativity
Research Journal, 9, 89–95. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0901_8
Basadur, M. S. (1995). Optimal ideation-evaluation ratios. Creativity
Research Journal, 8, 63–75. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0801_5
Basadur, M. S., Wakabayashi, M., & Graen, G. B. (1990). Individual problem
solving styles and attitudes toward divergent thinking before and after training.
Creativity Research Journal, 3, 22–32. doi:10.1080/10400419009534331
Cross, N. (1994). Engineering design methods—Strategies for product
design. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and
work. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1996). Analysing design
activity. London, UK: John Wiley.
Cross, N., & Clayburn Cross, A. (1995). Observations of teamwork and
social processes in design. Design Studies, 16, 143–170. doi:10.1016/
0142-694X(94)00007-Z
Dong, A. (2007). The enactment of design through language. Design
Studies, 28, 5–21. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2006.07.001
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolu-
tion of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437. doi:10.1016/
S0142-694X(01)00009-6
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005).
Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of
Engineering Education, 94, 103–120. doi:10.1002/jee.2005.94.issue-1
DIVERGENT AND CONVERGENT THINKING IN DESIGN 121
Ellamil, M., Dobson, C., Beeman, M., & Christoff, K. (2012). Evaluative
and generative modes of thought during the creative process.
NeuroImage, 59, 1783–1794. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.008
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual processing accounts of reasoning, judgment,
and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of
higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 8, 223–241. doi:10.1177/1745691612460685
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition:
Theory, research, and application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
The Free Dictionary. (n.d.). Divergent thinking. http://www.thefreediction
ary.com/divergent+thinking. Accessed January 25, 2015.
The Free Dictionary. (n.d.). Convergent thinking. http://www.thefreediction
ary.com/convergent+thinking. Accessed January 25, 2015.
Fricke, G. (1996). Successful individual approaches in engineering design.
Research in Engineering Design, 8, 151–165. doi:10.1007/BF01608350
Gabora, L. (2010). Revenge of the ‘neurds’: Characterizing creative thought
in terms of the structure and dynamics of memory. Creativity Research
Journal, 22(1), 1–13. doi:10.1080/10400410903579494
Goel, V. (2014). Creative brains: Designing in the real world. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 8(Article 241), 1–14. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00241
Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Studies, 16,
189–209. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(94)00009-3
Goldschmidt, G. (2013). A micro view of design reasoning: Two-way shifts
between embodiment and rationale. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Creativity and
rationale: Enhancing human experience by design (pp. 41–55). London,
UK: Springer Verlag.
Goldschmidt, G. (2014). Linkography: Unfolding the design process.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gruber, H. (1980). Afterword. In D. H. Feldman (Ed.), Beyond univer-
sals in cognitive development (pp. 177–178). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corp.
Gruber, H. E., & Davies, S. N. (1988). Inching our way up Mount
Olympus: The evolving-systems approach to creative thinking. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 243–270). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Ichino, J. (2011, September 24–28). Discriminating divergent/convergent
phases of meeting using non-verbal speech patterns. In S. Bødker, N. O.
Bouvin, W. Lutters, V. Wulf, & L. Ciolfi (Eds.), ECSCW 2011: Proceedings
of the 12th European conference on computer supported cooperative work
(pp. 153–172). Aarhus, Denmark: Springer Verlag.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Leonard, D., & Swap, W. (1999). When sparks fly: Harnessing the power of
group creativity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Linhares, A., Freitas, A. E. T. A., Mendes, A., & Silva, J. S. (2012).
Entanglement of perception and reasoning in the combinatorial game of
chess: Differential errors of strategic reconstruction. Cognitive Systems
Research, 13, 72–86. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2010.12.006
Liu, Y.-C., Blight, T., & Chakrabarti, A. (2003). Towards an ‘ideal’
approach for concept generation. Design Studies, 24, 341–355.
doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00003-6
Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process.
Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. doi:10.1037/h0048850
Perkins, D. (1981). The mind’s best work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Perkins, D. (1992). The topography of invention. In R. J. Weber, & D. N.
Perkins (Eds.), Inventive minds: Creativity in technology (pp. 238–250).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the
study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of crea-
tivity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pugh, S. (1991). Total design: Integrated methods for successful product
engineering. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
 122 G. GOLDSCHMIDT
Roozenberg, N. F. M., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: Fundamentals
and mthods. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Runco, M. A. (1991). The evaluative, valuative and divergent thinking of
children. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 311–319. doi:10.1002/
jocb.1991.25.issue-4
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, develop-
ment, and practice. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of
creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 66–75. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2012.652929
Runco, M. A., & Basadur, M. (1993). Assessing ideational and evaluative
skills and creative styles and attitudes. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 2, 166–173. doi:10.1111/caim.1993.2.issue-3
Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 22:33 13 May 2016
Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical-
norms manual. Bensenville, Il: Scholastic Testing Services.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psycholo-
gical perspectives (pp. 43–75). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Tversky, B., & Chou, J. Y. (2010). Creativity: Design and breadth. In T.
Taura, & Y. Nagai (Eds.), Design creativity 2010 (pp. 209–214). London,
UK: Springer.
Urban, K. K., & Jelle, H. G. (1996). Test for creative thinking-drawing
production (TCT-DP). Lisse, Netherland:. Swets and Zeitlinger.
Vidal, R. V. V. (2010). Creative problem solving: An applied university
course. Pesquisa Operacional, 30, 405–426. doi:10.1590/S0101-
74382010000200009